Glenn, we seem to be going round and round without communicating, so I think we might ought to close this thread. I just want to correct a few false statements that you keep on making and tie up a few loose ends.
1. Glenn wrote: > Job said he was perfect but according to David he > lied because a perfect person cannot admit he is > perfect. But David then says Job was perfect. It > is soooooooo easy to see the inconsistency here. The only inconsistency is in your mind. You can't seem to pay attention. I never said or implied that Job lied. That is a false statement. I have said over and over again that Job never said he was perfect. That statement is also false. Please stop the false statements. 2. Glenn wrote: > This doctrine falls on its head with anyone BEING > AS PERFECT AS GOD. So the doctrine has to say, > perfect yes, but not in love. Wrong. Perfect in love too, but not necessarily an absolute perfection. When my 3 year old climbs in my lap, she loves me with a perfect love. Nevertheless, that does not mean that she cannot grow in how she loves me. The problem is that you keep switching definitions whenever it pleases you because for some reason, you hate the message that we can love each other as God loves. I tell you the truth that when a person loves, their love is from God, and as such, it cannot be anything but perfect love. If a person loves, it comes from God. It's source is God. For some reason you want to say that when a person loves another person that it is inferior to God. How can that be when God is love? Love does not exist at all without God. 3. Glenn wrote: > This perfect thing was used in the Nazarene church with > a lady I know to not allow a lady to volunteer in the > Nursery because she smoked. I SEE THIS PERFECTION > DOCTRINE AS SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS. You should not judge all Nazarenes based upon your perception of what is proper. The apostles would not appoint men to serve tables unless they were full of the Holy Ghost. They would probably not allow a lady to work in the Nursery if she smoked either. Neither would I, but I'm not sure that all Nazarenes feel that way. Would you want to pick up your baby from the nursery and smell smoke on him or her because this lady was holding your baby and the smoke from her clothes transferred to the baby? Would you want someone who smoked breathing on your baby? 4. Glenn wrote: > Notice, David, knocks all scholars, if they > do not agree with him. This is a flat out lie. For example, I do not knock John Gill. I respect him and often look to him for comments about Hebrew related topics. Nevertheless, I disagree with his Baptist perception of once saved always saved and nobody can live like Jesus doctrine. 5. Glenn wrote: > I see you scoffing at Watter Martin and any scholar > that disagrees with the perfection doctrine. I never scoffed at Walter Martin. Walter quoted the definition of a cult from a scholar that he respected. He said he agreed with it and then added to it. In my opinion, his addition makes the definition derogatory and more vague. I simply expressed my opinion. For some reason, you can't handle it so you say that I scoff at him or anyone else who disagrees with me. That is a false accusation. 6. Glenn wrote: > it is OK to make money off of the KJ Bible by selling > it, but not OK to make money off of the NIV Bible > through royalties. Inconsistent is the way I see this. You keep misrepresenting what I say. This is starting to appear very wicked to me. I said that it is ok to make money off selling Bibles, any Bibles, both KJV and NIV. However, it is not right to demand royalties for a publicly owned document. So I deny the right of royalties for both the KJV and the NIV. I am very consistent on this matter. If I had more of a legal background, I would sue on this matter in court, in order to set a precedence and protect the right of the public to own the Bible. THE NIV PUBLISHERS DO NOT OWN THE BIBLE. They act as if they produced the work themselves, as if they were the original authors. If I was a lawyer, I would make my case in court, because they did not author the Bible, neither do they own it, and God certainly did not give them permission to act like they own the Bible. Their hope of winning such a law suit would be the very fact that their translation differs significantly enough from other translations that it is another work entirely. Now isn't that an interesting thought? Do you think they would win the law suit? If they did win based upon the basis of this legal theory, do you think people would believe that they restored the true Bible, or do you think that they would think that this new work was a corrupted Bible? 7. Glenn wrote: > It says we are to be perfect as God. No explaining can change that. I agree that explaining won't change what it says. You only have to believe it and stop doubting it. 8. Glenn wrote: > Yea, and lets kick people out of the church for > smoking or working on Sunday or wearing the > wrong dress in the name of perfection. > > I had failed to make the connection between what > you were saying and the Nazarenes. Now I > understand how these perfect people stink more > than ever with the sin of self-righteousnes. This kind of perfection is not what I am talking about. Not all Nazarenes approach holiness the way you depict it here. In Nazarene sects as well as Pentecostal holines sects, there are some who focus on the natural outward man. That kind of perfection is the letter, and it kills. I am not talking about that kind of perfection. I've explained what I'm talking about enough, but you just don't want to hear it. 9. Glenn wrote: > DavidM says he worships the same Jesus as Mormons worship. This is another flat out lie. I never said this. Perhaps we should back off for awhile on this thread. I see no profit in continuing to repeat myself over and over again. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
